Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (State and Metro Area)

Regional and State Employment and Unemployment (Monthly) News Release

Technical information:
Employment: (202) 691-6559 USDL 08-0411
http://www.bls.gov/sae/
Unemployment: (202) 691-6392
http://www.bls.gov/lau/ For release: 10:00 A.M. (EDT)
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 Friday, March 28, 2008
REGIONAL AND STATE EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT: FEBRUARY 2008
Regional and state unemployment rates were little changed in February.
Overall, 20 states and the District of Columbia recorded over-the-month
unemployment rate decreases, 19 states registered increases, and 11 states
had no change, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of
Labor reported today. Over the year, jobless rates were up in 26 states
and the District of Columbia, down in 20 states, and unchanged in 4 states.
The national unemployment rate was essentially unchanged in February at
4.8 percent, but was up from 4.5 percent a year earlier.
Between January 2008 and February 2008, employment increased in 23 states
and the District of Columbia and decreased in 27 states. California recorded
the largest over-the-month increase in employment (+25,800), followed by Texas
(+13,500), Washington (+7,400), Virginia (+4,700), and Maryland (+4,300). New
Mexico and Wyoming experienced the largest over-the-month percentage increase
in employment (+0.4 percent each), followed by the District of Columbia, Montana,
and West Virginia (+0.3 percent each) and Alaska, Arkansas, California, Delaware,
Maryland, and Washington (+0.2 percent each). The largest over-the-month de-
creases in employment occurred in Florida (-13,600), South Carolina (-11,800),
Ohio (-11,600), Indiana (-9,600), Illinois (-8,300), and Pennsylvania (-8,000).
South Carolina experienced the largest over-the-month percentage decrease in
employment (-0.6 percent), followed by Idaho (-0.4 percent), Hawaii, Indiana,
and Maine (-0.3 percent each), and Florida, Ohio, Rhode Island, and South Dakota
(-0.2 percent each). Over the year, nonfarm employment increased in 43 states
and the District of Columbia and decreased in 7 states. The largest over-the-
year percentage increases in employment occurred in Wyoming (+3.1 percent), Texas
and Utah (+2.3 percent each), Washington (+2.1 percent), and Colorado (+2.0 per-
cent). Rhode Island recorded the largest over-the-year percentage decrease in
employment (-1.6 percent), followed by Michigan (-1.5 percent), Florida and
Wisconsin (-0.3 percent each), and Nevada (-0.2 percent).
Regional Unemployment (Seasonally Adjusted)
In February, the Midwest continued to record the highest unemployment rate
among the regions, 5.2 percent, followed by the West at 5.0 percent. The South
again reported the lowest rate, 4.5 percent. No region had a statistically sig-
nificant rate change from January, though three regions registered significant
jobless rate increases from February 2007: the West(+0.5 percentage point),
Northeast (+0.4 point), and South (+0.2 point). (See table 1.)
------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Changes to Local Area Unemployment Statistics Data |
| |
| Effective with this release, the Local Area Unemployment Sta- |
| tistics (LAUS) program is resuming publication of monthly revi- |
| sions to the prior month's statewide and substate estimates |
| (tables 3 and 4). This change applies to all of the nearly |
| 7,300 LAUS geographic areas. The practice of monthly revisions |
| was discontinued with the release of February 2006 data on |
| March 30, 2006. Region and division data are not affected. |
| |
------------------------------------------------------------------
- 2 -
Among the nine geographic divisions, the East North Central reported the high-
est jobless rate in February, 5.6 percent, followed closely by the Pacific at 5.5
percent. The Mountain and West South Central divisions recorded the lowest rates,
4.0 percent each. The West South Central rate was the lowest in its series. (All
region, division, and state series begin in 1976.) The West South Central also
registered the only statistically significant jobless rate change from a month ear-
lier (-0.3 percentage point). Four divisions posted significant over-the-year un-
employment rate increases: the Pacific (+0.6 percentage point), Mountain and South
Atlantic (+0.5 point each), and Middle Atlantic (+0.4 point). The West South Central
had the only significant over-the-year rate decrease (-0.4 percentage point).
State Unemployment (Seasonally Adjusted)
In February, Michigan continued to report the highest jobless rate, 7.2 percent.
Alaska, at 6.6 percent, was the only other state to register a rate of 6.0 percent
or higher. South Dakota again recorded the lowest rate, 2.6 percent, followed by
Wyoming at 2.7 percent, and Idaho and Nebraska at 2.8 percent each. Texas posted
the lowest jobless rate in its series, 4.1 percent. Overall, 20 states reported
unemployment rates that were significantly below the U.S. rate of 4.8 percent, 5
states and the District of Columbia recorded measurably higher rates, and 25 states
had rates that were statistically little different from that of the nation. (See
tables A and 3.)
Five states reported statistically significant over-the-month jobless rate de-
creases in February: Arkansas, Oklahoma, and South Carolina (-0.6 percentage point
each); New York (-0.5 point); and Texas (-0.2 point). Tennessee registered the only
significant rate increase from the prior month (+0.4 percentage point). The remain-
ing 44 states and the District of Columbia recorded February unemployment rates that
were not appreciably different from those of a month earlier, even though some had
changes that were at least as large numerically as the significant changes.
Georgia and Nevada reported the largest jobless rate increases from February 2007
(+1.0 percentage point each). Seventeen additional states had smaller, yet also sta-
tistically significant, rate increases. Seven states registered significant over-the-
year unemployment rate decreases, the largest of which occurred in Oklahoma (-1.2 per-
centage points). The remaining 24 states and the District of Columbia recorded job-
less rates that were not appreciably different from those of a year earlier. (See
table B.)
Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Seasonally Adjusted)
Between January 2008 and February 2008, only one state experienced statistically
significant changes in employment. The statistically significant decrease in employ-
ment occurred in South Carolina (-11,800). (See tables C and 5.)
Over the year, 14 states recorded statistically significant changes in employment.
The largest statistically significant employment gains were reported in Texas (+235,000),
New York (+75,600), North Carolina (+63,500), Washington (+60,000), Colorado (+46,000),
and Georgia (+44,700). The only statistically significant over-the-year employment de-
cline was reported in Michigan (-62,900). Three states reported statistically signifi-
cant over-the-year employment increases that were less than 15,000: Nebraska (+13,800),
Wyoming (+8,700), and North Dakota (+6,600). (See table D.)
______________________________
The Metropolitan Area Employment and Unemployment release for February is scheduled
to be issued on Wednesday, April 2. The Regional and State Employment and Unemployment
release for March is scheduled to be issued on Friday, April 18.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Hurricane Katrina |
| |
| For February, BLS and its state partners continued to make |
|modifications to the usual estimation procedures for the LAUS |
|program to reflect the impact of Hurricane Katrina on the labor |
|force statistics in affected areas. These modifications included: |
|(1) modifying the state population controls to account for dis- |
|placement due to Katrina; (2) developing labor force estimates for |
|the New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner metropolitan area using an alterna-|
|tive to the model-based method; and (3) not publishing labor force |
|estimates for the parishes within the New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner |
|metropolitan area or cities within those parishes where the quality|
|of input data was severely compromised by the hurricane. |
| |
| For more information on LAUS procedures and estimates for |
|February 2008, see Hurricane Information: Katrina and Rita on |
|the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/Katrina/home.htm or call |
|(202) 691-6392. |
| |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
- 3 -
Table A. States with unemployment rates significantly differ-
ent from that of the U.S., February 2008, seasonally adjusted
--------------------------------------------------------------
State | Rate(p)
--------------------------------------------------------------
United States (1) ...............| 4.8
|
Alabama .........................| 3.7
Alaska ..........................| 6.6
Arizona .........................| 4.0
California ......................| 5.7
Delaware ........................| 3.7
District of Columbia ............| 5.9
Hawaii ..........................| 3.2
Idaho ...........................| 2.8
Iowa ............................| 3.5
Kansas ..........................| 3.7
|
Louisiana .......................| 3.7
Maryland ........................| 3.4
Michigan ........................| 7.2
Montana .........................| 3.3
Nebraska ........................| 2.8
Nevada ..........................| 5.5
New Hampshire ...................| 3.7
New Mexico ......................| 3.2
North Dakota ....................| 3.0
Oklahoma.........................| 3.1
|
Rhode Island ....................| 5.8
South Dakota ....................| 2.6
Texas ...........................| 4.1
Utah ............................| 3.0
Virginia ........................| 3.5
Wyoming .........................| 2.7
--------------------------------------------------------------
1 Data are not preliminary.
p = preliminary.
- 4 -
Table B. States with statistically significant unemployment rate
changes from February 2007 to February 2008, seasonally adjusted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Rate |
|-----------------------| Over-the-year
State | February | February | rate change(p)
| 2007 | 2008(p) |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska .........................| 6.0 | 6.6 | 0.6
California .....................| 5.0 | 5.7 | .7
Colorado .......................| 3.8 | 4.4 | .6
Connecticut ....................| 4.4 | 5.0 | .6
Delaware .......................| 3.4 | 3.7 | .3
Florida ........................| 3.7 | 4.6 | .9
Georgia ........................| 4.2 | 5.2 | 1.0
Hawaii .........................| 2.4 | 3.2 | .8
Illinois .......................| 4.8 | 5.5 | .7
Iowa ...........................| 3.7 | 3.5 | -.2
| | |
Kansas .........................| 4.2 | 3.7 | -.5
Maryland .......................| 3.6 | 3.4 | -.2
Montana ........................| 3.1 | 3.3 | .2
Nevada .........................| 4.5 | 5.5 | 1.0
New Jersey .....................| 4.3 | 4.8 | .5
New Mexico .....................| 3.8 | 3.2 | -.6
North Carolina .................| 4.5 | 5.0 | .5
Oklahoma .......................| 4.3 | 3.1 | -1.2
Oregon .........................| 5.0 | 5.5 | .5
Pennsylvania ...................| 4.3 | 4.9 | .6
| | |
Rhode Island ...................| 4.9 | 5.8 | .9
South Dakota ...................| 3.1 | 2.6 | -.5
Tennessee ......................| 4.5 | 5.3 | .8
Texas ..........................| 4.5 | 4.1 | -.4
Utah ...........................| 2.4 | 3.0 | .6
Virginia .......................| 2.9 | 3.5 | .6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
p = preliminary.
- 5 -
Table C. States with statistically significant employment changes from
January 2008 to February 2008, seasonally adjusted
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| January | February | Over-the-month
State | 2008 | 2008(p) | change(p)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina ............| 1,966,400 | 1,954,600 | -11,800
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
p = preliminary.
Table D. States with statistically significant employment changes
from February 2007 to February 2008, seasonally adjusted
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| February | February | Over-the-year
State | 2007 | 2008(p) | change(p)
-----------------------------|----------------------------------------
Colorado ....................| 2,307,400 | 2,353,400 | 46,000
Georgia .....................| 4,137,800 | 4,182,500 | 44,700
Kentucky.....................| 1,859,000 | 1,881,100 | 22,100
Maryland ....................| 2,599,600 | 2,630,300 | 30,700
Michigan ....................| 4,291,300 | 4,228,400 | -62,900
Nebraska ....................| 956,400 | 970,200 | 13,800
New York ....................| 8,703,000 | 8,779,400 | 75,600
North Carolina ..............| 4,122,500 | 4,186,000 | 63,500
North Dakota ................| 355,900 | 362,500 | 6,600
Oklahoma.....................| 1,557,200 | 1,582,500 | 25,300
| | |
Texas .......................| 10,264,000 | 10,499,000 | 235,000
Utah ........................| 1,238,400 | 1,267,300 | 28,900
Washington ..................| 2,911,900 | 2,971,900 | 60,000
Wyoming .....................| 285,100 | 293,800 | 8,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------
p = preliminary.

- 6 -
Technical Note
This release presents labor force and unemployment data for census
regions and divisions, states, and selected substate areas from the Local
Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) program (tables 1-4). Also presented
are nonfarm payroll employment estimates by state and major industry from
the Current Employment Statistics (CES) program (tables 5 and 6). The
LAUS and CES programs are both federal-state cooperative endeavors.
Labor force and unemployment--from the LAUS program
Definitions. The labor force and unemployment data are based on the
same concepts and definitions as those used for the official national
estimates obtained from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a sample
survey of households that is conducted for the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) by the U.S. Census Bureau. The labor force includes both the employed
and the unemployed. Employed persons are those who did any work at all for
pay or profit in the reference week (the week including the 12th of the month)
or worked 15 hours or more without pay in a family business or farm, plus
those not working who had a job from which they were temporarily absent,
whether or not paid, for such reasons as labor-management dispute, illness,
or vacation. Unemployed persons are those who did not work at all (in the
reference week), had actively looked for a job (sometime in the 4-week period
ending with the reference week), and were currently available for work; per-
sons on layoff expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted
as unemployed.
Method of estimation. Estimates for all census divisions, states, the
District of Columbia, the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale metropolitan
division, and New York City are produced using estimating equations based
on regression techniques. This method, which underwent substantial enhance-
ment at the beginning of 2005, utilizes data from several sources, including
the CPS, the CES, and state unemployment insurance (UI) data. Estimates for
the six other areas contained in this release use a different regression
approach. A detailed description of the estimation procedures is available
from BLS upon request. Estimates for census regions are obtained by summing
the model-based estimates for the component divisions and then calculating
the unemployment rate.
Annual revisions. Labor force and unemployment data shown for the prior
year reflect adjustments made at the end of each year, usually implemented
with January estimates. The adjusted estimates reflect updated population
data from the U.S. Census Bureau, any revisions in the other data sources,
and model reestimation.
Seasonal adjustment. Seasonal adjustment of census division, state, and
substate area model employment and unemployment levels is performed within
the modeling procedure. The model estimation is based on the classical ap-
proach to seasonal adjustment, in which the series is decomposed into trend,
seasonal, irregular, and survey error. This directly yields seasonally ad-
justed estimates for employment and unemployment levels with reliability
measures. Labor force levels and unemployment rates are calculated from
these two estimates. Additionally, measures for the state of California are
derived by summing the seasonally adjusted estimates for the Los Angeles-Long
Beach-Glendale metropolitan division and the balance of California, and the
estimates for the state of New York are the sum of the estimates for New York
City and the balance of New York. Labor force estimates for census regions
are calculated as the sum of the levels of the component divisions, and the
unemployment rate is then calculated. In most years, historical data for the
most recent 5 years are revised near the beginning of each calendar year,
usually coincident with the release of January estimates.
Area definitions. The substate area data published in this release reflect
the standards and definitions established by the U.S. Office of Management and
Budget on November 20, 2007. A detailed list of the geographic definitions is
available on the Internet at http://www.bls.gov/lau/lausmsa.htm.
- 7 -
Employment--from the CES program
Definitions. Employment data refer to persons on establishment payrolls
who receive pay for any part of the pay period that includes the 12th of
the month. Persons are counted at their place of work rather than at their
place of residence; those appearing on more than one payroll are counted on
each payroll. Industries are classified on the basis of their principal
activity in accordance with the 2007 version of the North American Industry
Classification System.
Method of estimation. The employment data are estimated using a "link
relative" technique in which a ratio (link relative) of current-month em-
ployment to that of the previous month is computed from a sample of estab-
lishments reporting for both months. The estimates of employment for the
current month are obtained by multiplying the estimates for the previous
month by these ratios. Small-domain models are used as the official esti-
mators for the approximately 39 percent of CES published series which have
insufficient sample for direct sample-based estimates.
Annual revisions. Employment estimates are adjusted annually to a
complete count of jobs, called benchmarks, derived principally from tax
reports that are submitted by employers who are covered under state
unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The benchmark information is used to
adjust the monthly estimates between the new benchmark and the preceding
one and also to establish the level of employment for the new benchmark
month. Thus, the benchmarking process establishes the level of employment,
and the sample is used to measure the month-to-month changes in the level
for the subsequent months.
Seasonal adjustment. Payroll employment data are seasonally adjusted at
the statewide supersector level. In some states, the seasonally adjusted
payroll employment total is computed by aggregating the independently ad-
justed supersector series. In other states, the seasonally adjusted pay-
roll employment total is independently adjusted. Revisions of historical
data for the most recent 5 years are made once a year, coincident with
annual benchmark adjustments.
Caution on aggregating state data. State estimation procedures are
designed to produce accurate data for each individual state. BLS inde-
pendently develops a national employment series; state estimates are not
forced to sum to national totals. Because each state series is subject
to larger sampling and nonsampling errors than the national series, summing
them cumulates individual state level errors and can cause significant dis-
tortions at an aggregate level. Due to these statistical limitations, BLS
does not compile a "sum-of-states" employment series, and cautions users that
such a series is subject to a relatively large and volatile error structure.
Reliability of the estimates
The estimates presented in this release are based on sample survey, ad-
ministrative data, and modeling and, thus, are subject to sampling and other
types of errors. Sampling error is a measure of sampling variability--that
is, variation that occurs by chance because a sample rather than the entire
population is surveyed. Survey data also are subject to nonsampling errors,
such as those which can be introduced into the data collection and processing
operations. Estimates not directly derived from sample surveys are subject
to additional errors resulting from the specific estimation processes used.
The sums of individual items may not always equal the totals shown in the
same tables because of rounding. With respect to the LAUS program, unem-
ployment rates are computed from unrounded data rather than from data that
may be displayed in the tables; differences, however, are generally insig-
nificant.
- 8 -
Use of error measures. In 2005, the Local Area Unemployment Statistics
(LAUS) program introduced several improvements to its methodology. Among
these was the development of model-based error measures for the monthly
estimates and the estimates of over-the-month changes. The introductory
section of this release preserves the long-time practice of highlighting
the direction of the movements in regional and state unemployment rates
and state nonfarm payroll employment regardless of their statistical sig-
nificance. The remainder of the analysis in the release takes the statis-
tical significance of monthly and annual changes into consideration.
Labor force and unemployment estimates. Model-based error measures for
both seasonally adjusted and not seasonally adjusted data, and for over-the-
month change, are available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/lau/
lastderr.htm. BLS uses a 90-percent confidence level in determining whether
changes in LAUS unemployment rates are statistically significant. The average
magnitude of the over-the-month change in a state unemployment rate that is
required in order to be statistically significant at the 90-percent confidence
level is between 0.3 and 0.4 percentage point. More details can be found on
the Web site. Measures of nonsampling error are not available, but additional
information on the subject is provided in Employment and Earnings Online at
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ee/home.htm.
Employment estimates. Measures of sampling error for state CES data at the
total nonfarm and supersector level and for metropolitan area CES data at the
total nonfarm level are available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/
sae/790stderr.htm. BLS uses a 90-percent confidence level in determining
whether changes in CES employment levels are statistically significant. In-
formation on recent benchmark revisions for states is available on the BLS
Web site at http://www.bls.gov/sae/.
Additional information
More complete information on the technical procedures used to develop
these estimates and additional data appear in Employment and Earnings On-
line.
Estimates of labor force and unemployment, as well as nonfarm employment
from the CES program, for over 300 metropolitan areas and metropolitan New
England City and Town Areas (NECTAs) are available in the news release,
Metropolitan Area Employment and Unemployment. Estimates of labor force,
employment, and unemployment for all states, metropolitan areas, labor mar-
ket areas, counties, cities with a population of 25,000 or more, and other
areas used in the administration of various federal economic assistance pro-
grams are available on the BLS Web site at http://www.bls.gov/lau/. Employ-
ment data from the CES program are available at http://www.bls.gov/sae/.
Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired
individuals upon request. Voice phone: (202) 691-5200; TDD message refer-
ral phone: 1-800-877-8339.